Back when I was a wee lad, playing in the local school yards and such, there used to be these large swarms of bugs. No, not bugs - GNATS.

Friggin gnats. What is their purpose? I mean, I know... they're scavengers bugs which eat up rotting flesh blah blah blah, save me the wikipedia dialogue. They're friggin gnats. Tiny little bugs with tiny little bodies. They'd be flying up in my ears. They'd be flying up in my nose. They'd be flying up in my mouth. They'd be flying up in my eyes. Just disruptive little friggers gettin' all up in my grill. Tryin' to eat my cheddar.

But seriously. Ecosystem. Blah blah blah. We don't need em.

Let em go the way of the dodo birds. Exterminate them friggin gnats. Blowtorch em. Make em drink cyanide. Or whatever it is you do to exterminate an entire race of relatively useless bugs.

But I digress. It's also a good thing that we are mandated to wear clothes in this society because god only knows where else them gnats would be flying.

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this important issue. I have to accept the Con - Let's keep gnats. It's a tough position, certainly, and probably unpopular.

You have identified a gnat's purpose: scavenger. You have identified their attraction to rotting flesh. I suspect a strong association between rotting flesh and your ears, nose, mouth, eyes, and grill. Perhaps your first line of defense should be personal hygiene. Gnats have limited intelligence. Any similarities between rotting flesh and your cheddar must be addressed and perhaps your gnat aversion will disappear accordingly.

But I like ecosystems, blah blah blah. I have an aquarium. That's an ecosystem that I created. So I deduce: rotting flesh > attract gnats > artificial ecosystem. Boom.

Gnats are important for the world, so instead of destroying them (which would be impractical), I will propose a Gnat Ecosystem Management System (or NEMS for short) which I will describe in the next argument and defend in round 3.

My brother had an SNES but he would never let me play it. On account of my skin disease. But it's not my fault my mom was attracted to zoo animals and ultimately hooked up with a zebra from the traveling circus. I like the circus though. At first I started going to the circus because I was trying to find my dad but I eventually stayed around for the cotton candy and peanuts and the bearded woman. Oh baby! But then one day I learned that my dad had been murdered in a circus performance accident. He broke his leg and being that he displayed strong animal-like features, he being a zebra and all, they had to put him down. But after he died his body was laid to waste. It slowly decomposed on the side of a decrepit asphalt parking lot where the circus had once been. And as his flesh began to rot and the homeless children ran away from the corpse in horror, he slowly became engulfed in a large storm of bugs. No, not bugs - GNATS.

I empthize with your loss. But this issue isn't as black-and-white as a decomposing zebra.

My Gnat Ecosystem Management System (or NEMS for short) is designed to prey upon the gnat's natural instincts and appetite for rotting flesh. No gnat can resist foul odors eminating from noses, mouths, ears, and hair-care products.

I'm sharing with you my Gnat Ecosystem Management System (or NEMS for short) prototypes, ready for roll-out this summer as the gnats begin to breed in American suburbia.

Place one of these Gnat Ecosystem Management System (or NEMS for short) into your yard. Gnats are automatically drawn to these like Japanese Beetles to those green catheter bag things. The Gnat Ecosystem Management System (or NEMS for short) are covered with toxic chemicals only found in Trump's hair and Hillary's makeup. It is 99.999% effective at destroying gnats that come in contact, without harming the environment or the global gnat population.

We apply the term "troll debate" to joke debates, which this clearly is.

There's no clear means to restrict people from reporting votes, and frankly, as that process is extensively screened to prevent problematic vote removals, it's not tremendously concerning that some people report more than others.

And I'd say that a "only debaters can report votes" system is also problematic. Some people are going to be more active than others and will be online more often during the voting period, resulting in more potential reports by them. Some new users don't know about the report feature, or if they do, they don't know the difference between a sufficient and an insufficient vote. Others having the ability to report votes improves the ability to address these disparities. If both debaters really don't want their votes moderated, then require no RFDs from the outset. We don't moderate votes on those debates.

1. I think you guys have a pretty loose definition of "troll debate". To me trolling is an attempt to irritate other people. Which was not my intent at all. My intent was to have fun. With that said I believe that the vote should stand because the voter provided what was IMO a solid RFD.

2. Imo the true trolls on this site are the ones running around reporting every vote on the site. I mean honestly, the voter explained both the more convincing argument points and the source points. So why waste the moderators time? Meanwhile you mods are just running around removing votes high and low - which is frustrating and ultimately chasing off a lot of new users. Which is eventually going to suck the life out of the website. And honestly I don't blame the mods. I blame the true trolls aka the OCD vote reporters.

IMO if you see the same guys reporting votes constantly and there's nothing to remove - aka wasting your time - that needs to be addressed.

5 points to Con (Arguments, Source). Reasons for voting decision: A quality debate, and sturdily argued by both sides. Well done! Normally, I would award conduct to Con because Pro forfeited his last round; however, he had already made as much sense as he was ever likely to; the lack of a round did not significantly affect his arguments. Arguments goes to Con for the comparison between his opponent and rotting meat. Sources also to Con, I found that image particularly compelling evidence for his case. Also: the only source used or needed.

[*Reason for non-removal*] This is pretty clearly a troll debate, and troll debates aren"t moderated.
************************************************************************

Reasons for voting decision: A quality debate, and sturdily argued by both sides. Well done!
Normally, I would award conduct to Con because Pro forfeited his last round; however, he had already made as much sense as he was ever likely to; the lack of a round did not significantly affect his arguments. Arguments goes to Con for the comparison between his opponent and rotting meat. Sources also to Con, I found that image particularly compelling evidence for his case. Also: the only source used or needed.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.